Interesting Reading?

On 02/09/2010 18:48, Tony Raven wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:

Its been characterised as a policy that gives people a false perception
that their safety had improved so wins votes.

So people are safer but you don't think that matters. Fair enough.

Reread it - people had a false perception they were safer, they were not
actually safer.

Says....?

But no evidence that Zero Tolerance didn't work in NYC?
Are you serious?

Yes.

"Taken together, the evidence from New York City and from the five-city
social experiment provides no support for a simple first-order disorder-crime
relationship as hypothesized by Wilson and Kelling, nor that broken windows
policing is the optimal use of scarce law enforcement resources."
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=743284

Bernard E. Harcourt, "Illusion of Order: The False Promise of Broken Windows
Policing" (Harvard 2001) ISBN 0-674-01590-8.

That's just jargon - and I'm a social scientist and I know what a first-order
relationship is.

Say what you think it all *means* and take it from there.

I don't know whether you've been to New York in recent years; if you have,
you'll probably agree with me that the city feels very safe. An armed
policeman on almost every corner probably accounts for some of that. If only
London felt as safe (it certainly doesn't).

Let us leave aside for the moment that fact that you seem to think that
fraud is a worse crime than (or is equivalent to) robbery, assault or
murder...

On what basis do you make that claim?

That observation (not claim) is made on the basis that you are seeking to
undermine and trivialise the tremendous efforts made against real, harmful,
vicious, anti-social crime such as that which once notoriously characterised
even central (let alone inner) New York. And that was in response to a
comparison between the sort of crime that people really are right to be
concerned about (ie, what might happen to them in the street) and pure
economic crime which is not life-threatening and does not terrorise
neighbourhoods (eg, embezzlement and similar white-collar crime).

There is, of course, a school of thought in which white collar crime is
worse than any other sort and that "street crime" (as murder, violent assault
and robbery is nowadays often euphemistically called) is much less worthy of
concern or political attention.

No, I don't accept it either.

JNugent wrote:


That's just jargon - and I'm a social scientist and I know what a
first-order relationship is.

Say what you think it all *means* and take it from there.

Perhaps you should have read the article first rather than relying on
just one line from the abstract.

It concludes:

"Our bottom line is that there is no good evidence that broken windows
policing reduces crime" (p316)



I don't know whether you've been to New York in recent years; if you
have, you'll probably agree with me that the city feels very safe. An
armed policeman on almost every corner probably accounts for some of
that. If only London felt as safe (it certainly doesn't).

I used to go to New York virtually monthly from years before Guiliani
started his Zero Tolerance policy in 1993 to late 2000 and less often
since. So I've seen the whole experiment play out from beginning to end
and I suspect have a much better perspective of it than you as a result.

I could take you to places a few blocks away from where you'd feel safe
to somewhere you definitely wouldn't even in downtown. I've never felt
unsafe in London, I've felt very unsafe at times in New York even in a cab.



Let us leave aside for the moment that fact that you seem to think that
fraud is a worse crime than (or is equivalent to) robbery, assault or
murder...

On what basis do you make that claim?

That observation (not claim) is made on the basis that you are seeking
to undermine and trivialise the tremendous efforts made against real,
harmful, vicious, anti-social crime such as that which once notoriously
characterised even central (let alone inner) New York. And that was in
response to a comparison between the sort of crime that people really
are right to be concerned about (ie, what might happen to them in the
street) and pure economic crime which is not life-threatening and does
not terrorise neighbourhoods (eg, embezzlement and similar white-collar
crime).

Well there you go jumping to conclusions again. Saying something
doesn't work is not making any comment on the importance of the
objectives just as saying a cancer treatment doesn't work is not
trivialising cancer. But if you believe it does, it would explain a lot.

Tony

On Sep 1, 10:19*am, Tony Raven wrote:
webreader wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...e-cyclists-red...

There's starting to be a change in the police attitudes in London. *When
they say they do it because of "community demand" what actually happens,
as here and in the media, is a few vocal individuals who don't like
cyclists have tended to dominate the community meetings. *Since London
cyclists have been making a point of attending these meetings to provide
some balance the police are coming away with a more balanced "community
demand" about all road users, not just cyclists.

Tony

So the people who are complaining about law breaking cyclists are
greater in number than those who don't complain, why do you think that
is.
Could it be those who complain have a reason.
Or is it that you can't stand complaints about law breaking cyclists,
I would have thought that the law abiding majority would be against
the law breakers.

On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Marie wrote:
On Sep 1, 10:19*am, Tony Raven wrote:

There's starting to be a change in the police attitudes in London.
*When they say they do it because of "community demand" what
actually happens, as here and in the media, is a few vocal
individuals who don't like cyclists have tended to dominate the
community meetings. *Since London cyclists have been making a
point of attending these meetings to provide some balance the
police are coming away with a more balanced "community demand"
about all road users, not just cyclists.

So the people who are complaining about law breaking cyclists are
greater in number than those who don't complain, why do you think
that is.

Sorry, I don't follow that from what Tony wrote. He said "a few vocal
individuals" complain, and you interpret that as being a majority of
the population? Please explain how you get to your assertion that the
majority of the population complain about law breaking cyclists.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 03/09/2010 08:05, Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:51:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sep 1, 10:19 am, Tony wrote:

There's starting to be a change in the police attitudes in London.
When they say they do it because of "community demand" what
actually happens, as here and in the media, is a few vocal
individuals who don't like cyclists have tended to dominate the
community meetings. Since London cyclists have been making a
point of attending these meetings to provide some balance the
police are coming away with a more balanced "community demand"
about all road users, not just cyclists.

So the people who are complaining about law breaking cyclists are
greater in number than those who don't complain, why do you think
that is.

Sorry, I don't follow that from what Tony wrote. He said "a few vocal
individuals" complain, and you interpret that as being a majority of
the population? Please explain how you get to your assertion that the
majority of the population complain about law breaking cyclists.

regards, Ian SMith

Marie said "greater in number", no mention of the majority of the
population, she (IMO) was talking about community meetings.

How do you extrapolate what she posted into 'the majority of the
population'?

--
Tony Dragon

Marie wrote:
On Sep 1, 10:19 am, Tony Raven wrote:
webreader wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...e-cyclists-red...
There's starting to be a change in the police attitudes in London. When
they say they do it because of "community demand" what actually happens,
as here and in the media, is a few vocal individuals who don't like
cyclists have tended to dominate the community meetings. Since London
cyclists have been making a point of attending these meetings to provide
some balance the police are coming away with a more balanced "community
demand" about all road users, not just cyclists.

Tony

So the people who are complaining about law breaking cyclists are
greater in number than those who don't complain, why do you think that
is.

Which part of "a few vocal individuals" are you having trouble
understanding

Could it be those who complain have a reason.

I'm sure they all have their reasons. Whether they are logical, valid
or justified reasons is another matter.

Or is it that you can't stand complaints about law breaking cyclists,

Since their law breaking is no greater than that of the complainers and
the risk they represent far less, I would say my objection is more of
the "people in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones" variety.

I would have thought that the law abiding majority would be against
the law breakers.

Does such a thing exist? In an RAC survey 75% of drivers admitted
speeding on motorways and 57% in 30mph zones. Interestingly though 90%
thought they were law abiding, a fallacy you seem to have fallen for too.

Tony

"Tony Raven" wrote in message
...

Or is it that you can't stand complaints about law breaking cyclists,

Since their law breaking is no greater than that of the complainers and
the risk they represent far less, I would say my objection is more of the
"people in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones" variety.


I complain about law breaking cyclists on pavements and going through red
lights.

But in the car or on abike, I stop on a red light and do not cycle on
pavements.

pk

On 03/09/2010 08:05, Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:51:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sep 1, 10:19 am, Tony wrote:

There's starting to be a change in the police attitudes in London.
When they say they do it because of "community demand" what
actually happens, as here and in the media, is a few vocal
individuals who don't like cyclists have tended to dominate the
community meetings. Since London cyclists have been making a
point of attending these meetings to provide some balance the
police are coming away with a more balanced "community demand"
about all road users, not just cyclists.

So the people who are complaining about law breaking cyclists are
greater in number than those who don't complain, why do you think
that is.

Sorry, I don't follow that from what Tony wrote. He said "a few vocal
individuals" complain, and you interpret that as being a majority of
the population? Please explain how you get to your assertion that the
majority of the population complain about law breaking cyclists.

In case there is any doubt about this, it isn't necessary for a majority of
the population to have complained about something in order to be able to
confidently draw the conclusion that the something complained about is of
concern to a majority.

On 03/09/2010 08:44, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 03/09/2010 08:05, Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:51:25 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
On Sep 1, 10:19 am, Tony wrote:

There's starting to be a change in the police attitudes in London.
When they say they do it because of "community demand" what
actually happens, as here and in the media, is a few vocal
individuals who don't like cyclists have tended to dominate the
community meetings. Since London cyclists have been making a
point of attending these meetings to provide some balance the
police are coming away with a more balanced "community demand"
about all road users, not just cyclists.

So the people who are complaining about law breaking cyclists are
greater in number than those who don't complain, why do you think
that is.

Sorry, I don't follow that from what Tony wrote. He said "a few vocal
individuals" complain, and you interpret that as being a majority of
the population? Please explain how you get to your assertion that the
majority of the population complain about law breaking cyclists.

regards, Ian SMith

Marie said "greater in number", no mention of the majority of the population,
she (IMO) was talking about community meetings.

How do you extrapolate what she posted into 'the majority of the population'?

That's what statistics is all about. A sample is the best you can ever get.

On 02/09/2010 21:30, Tony Raven wrote:

JNugent wrote:

That's just jargon - and I'm a social scientist and I know what a
first-order relationship is.
Say what you think it all *means* and take it from there.

Perhaps you should have read the article first rather than relying on just
one line from the abstract.

It concludes:

"Our bottom line is that there is no good evidence that broken windows
policing reduces crime" (p316)

That's a polemical position. There are those who hold different positions.

Arguing that "Zero Tolerance" hasn't worked in NY is an argument against a
large body of literature pointing the opposite way.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mary-dejevsky-zero-tolerance-has-cleaned-up--new-york-but-it-wont-work-here-654797.html

That's just a random example from Google. If you think the the Independent
journalist (a body of workers not known to be chosen for their radical
right-wing credentials) is wrong, no doubt you will be able to say why.

I don't know whether you've been to New York in recent years; if you have,
you'll probably agree with me that the city feels very safe. An armed
policeman on almost every corner probably accounts for some of that. If
only London felt as safe (it certainly doesn't).

I used to go to New York virtually monthly from years before Guiliani started
his Zero Tolerance policy in 1993 to late 2000 and less often since. So I've
seen the whole experiment play out from beginning to end and I suspect have a
much better perspective of it than you as a result.

I could take you to places a few blocks away from where you'd feel safe to
somewhere you definitely wouldn't even in downtown. I've never felt unsafe in
London, I've felt very unsafe at times in New York even in a cab.

If you don't know of parts of London that don't feel safe - even during
daylight hours - you are either not a regular visitor there or are being
disingenuous. I have my suspicions as to which is the more likely.

Let us leave aside for the moment that fact that you seem to think that
fraud is a worse crime than (or is equivalent to) robbery, assault or
murder...

On what basis do you make that claim?

That observation (not claim) is made on the basis that you are seeking to
undermine and trivialise the tremendous efforts made against real, harmful,
vicious, anti-social crime such as that which once notoriously
characterised even central (let alone inner) New York. And that was in
response to a comparison between the sort of crime that people really are
right to be concerned about (ie, what might happen to them in the street)
and pure economic crime which is not life-threatening and does not
terrorise neighbourhoods (eg, embezzlement and similar white-collar crime).

Well there you go jumping to conclusions again. Saying something doesn't work
is not making any comment on the importance of the objectives just as saying
a cancer treatment doesn't work is not trivialising cancer. But if you
believe it does, it would explain a lot.

In that case, you will no doubt be able to prove that NYC is not safer than
it was at the beginning of 1993, and/or that you know of a way to make it
safer which does not involve enforcing the law.

Isn't this really only about your not wanting cyclists to be forced to obey
the law?